However, as CRedskin pointed out, the agreement to limit the amount of restructering that could be done was not a decision that could be made by the owners at the time the decision was made. At the time the decision was made, any such agreement was forbidden by the CBA then in force. Whether it was 32 or 28 it is irrelevant, the agreement was in contravention of the CBA and was simply not enforceable. The sanction being now imposed is an attempt to punish teams that operated within the letter and spirit of the CBA. Any agreement to the contrary was prohibited and no amount of retroactive procedures can change that.

First and foremost, the fact that a party, whether it be the NFLPA or the Dallas Cowboys, takes no legal action is simply not indicative of whether or not other parties, i.e. the Redskins, have legal remedies.

As to the NFLPA, it certainly cannot now complain that the sanction is improper b/c, by accepting the salary cap presented by the NFL, they have aquiesed to the penalty and the restrictions it creates for their members. Further, and as noted above, for actions taken during the 2010 offseason, the NFLPA settled their collusion claims and effectively waived any right of protest they had. Essentially, the owners have been given a free pass and are free from threat of lawsuit by the players on any issues regarding collusion or the salary cap amounts.

In relying on the NFLPA's acquiesence to the sanction as a basis for asserting that the sanction against DS & JJ is permissible, however, you're taking procedural issues applicable to one party and improperly applying them on the same substantive level to the issues applicable to another party.

In regards to DS and JJ and the sanction issue, the NFLPA could have procedurallly nixed the sanction and this whole thing is a non-issue. Under the current CBA's procedures, the NFLPA could have said, nope, no way no how. They did not, so their members are screwed to the extent they would have benefitted from Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones having more money to spend BUT they got a higher salary cap number. Thus, under the governing procedures and as to the players, the NFLPA's action substantively ends the issue. However, the NFLPA's procedural acquiesence is not determinative of the substantive rights of DS and JJ as members of the joint venture known as the NFL. Specifically, the NFLPA's procedural acceptance of the sanction is not determinative of the substantive rights held by DS & JJ in relation to their fellow owners.

While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant as to whether members of the joint venture are attempting to sanction other members of the joint venture for actions that were simply not improper at the time they were taken. Again, DS and JJ were bound by the CBA then in force. Did they violate it in any way? No. The NFL and their fellow owners are now attempting to sanction DS and JJ for not cheating on the CBA. In determining whether or not such actions are permissible, the NFLPA is not part of the equation.

Yes. The NFL has very good attorneys and, I am sure, they will dress up their weak ass legal arguments (which I set out at #104) as well as can be expected. But, when you get right down to it, the owners are punishing DS & JJ for failing to cheat on the CBA. Ultimately, regardless of all the subsequent procedural CYA, that's the ultimate fact that cannot be avoided.

We actually agree on the NFLPA,now where we disagree is
your opinon that the actions of DS and JJ were not improper if as reported they did agree with the other 30 owners they did agree not to dump salaries then they action of the "comittee" overides the action of the 2(or 4)you say they were bound by the CBA.....yet the NFLPA says it was fine with them.Look you sayng the actions were proper at the time ,of course you do you are a Redskin fan but that simply is not the case.
This is where we disagree .. you say "While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant " I understand your opinion but I disagree that it is as you say irrelevant.You have 2 parties the owners and the players and both are together in their opinion of what happen except DS and JJ and it looks as if the Cowboys will accept the punishment.I enjoy your theories and at the end of the day that is all mine are becuase nether of us knows the true facts of the case and all we can do is speculate on what really transpired.You use very good words as "cheat" and "cheap ass case" but in the end we know the the NFL lawyers might make it look the other way around.

__________________ ....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.

We actually agree on the NFLPA,now where we disagree is
your opinon that the actions of DS and JJ were not improper if as reported they did agree with the other 30 owners they did agree not to dump salaries then they action of the "comittee" overides the action of the 2(or 4)you say they were bound by the CBA.....yet the NFLPA says it was fine with them.Look you sayng the actions were proper at the time ,of course you do you are a Redskin fan but that simply is not the case.
This is where we disagree .. you say "While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant " I understand your opinion but I disagree that it is as you say irrelevant.You have 2 parties the owners and the players and both are together in their opinion of what happen except DS and JJ and it looks as if the Cowboys will accept the punishment.I enjoy your theories and at the end of the day that is all mine are becuase nether of us knows the true facts of the case and all we can do is speculate on what really transpired.You use very good words as "cheat" and "cheap ass case" but in the end we know the the NFL lawyers might make it look the other way around.

If it goes to arbitration, I hope the Redskins ask for removal of the balance of the $18 million for next year and a compensatory pick at the end of the 2nd round this year to compensate for our inability to utilize the cap space we were entitled to.

__________________ Paintrain's Redskins Fandom
1981-2014

I'm not dead but this team is dead to me...but now that McCloughan is here they may have new life!

We actually agree on the NFLPA,now where we disagree is
your opinon that the actions of DS and JJ were not improper if as reported they did agree with the other 30 owners they did agree not to dump salaries then they action of the "comittee" overides the action of the 2(or 4)you say they were bound by the CBA.....yet the NFLPA says it was fine with them.Look you sayng the actions were proper at the time ,of course you do you are a Redskin fan but that simply is not the case.

...and you feel the opposite because you are a Giants fan and want to see the Skins wing clipped. HERP DERP.

I still got nothing from you with the picture I posted and your claim that "only 4 teams" did it. What I showed says otherwise.

__________________ "So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty

We actually agree on the NFLPA, now where we disagree is your opinon that the actions of DS and JJ were not improper if as reported they did agree with the other 30 owners they did agree not to dump salaries then they action of the "committee" overrides the action of the 2(or 4) you say they were bound by the CBA.....yet the NFLPA says it was fine with them. Look you saying the actions were proper at the time ,of course you do you are a Redskin fan but that simply is not the case.

Why is it not the case? Explain this to me. Tell me the legal principle upon which you rely. All I have seen from you is:

1) DS & JJ may have agreed with the other owners not to engage in contract dumping in the uncapped year. Alternatively, (and as demonstrated by the NFL's statement), the Skins did not agree but rather: "The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement’s early years." NFL statement on salary cap sanctions (emphasis added).

Thus, the sanction is being imposed for actions that took place in 2010. As they related to club/player "contract practices", the actions of the club owners in 2010 were governed by the CBA negotiated between the players and owners in 2006 CBA extension. Here is the relevant section of that agreement as it relates to collusion:

“ARTICLE XXVIII: ANTI-COLLUSION - Section 1. Prohibited Conduct: No Club, its employees or agents, shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents, to restrict or limit individual Club decision making as follows: …(a) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player; … (e) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.” http://static.nfl.com/static/content...-2006-2012.pdf

In light of that clause, tell me how any agreement by the owners that “the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance” does not violate this section.

By their own words, the NFL, through their Management Council is sanctioning DS & JJ for refusing to act pursuant to an “agreement, express or implied, [between] the NFL [and] other Club[s] … to restrict or limit individual Club decision making … concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.”

Whether or not DS & JJ may have, at some point, agreed to the violative conduct and then changed their minds is irrelevant. Any argument based on the agreement of DS & JJ to the collusive conduct is based on the theory that an illegal agreement can be enforced (In this case, the attempted enforcement comes two years after the fact in the form of a sanction).

It can’t. Show me one cite, one theory that indicates an illegal contract (i.e. the verbal agreement in 2010 to avoid contract dumping in the uncapped year) can be legally enforced against a party who subsequently reneges on their promise to participate in the illegal agreement.

2) “The NFLPA says it was fine with them.” No. If you are asserting that the NFLPA has said the NFL’s owners agreement to restrict contract negotiations in 2010 was "fine with them", you are just wrong. Such an assertion is simply contrary to the known facts on this matter.

In fact, in January, 2011 (during the CBA negotiations), the NFLPA brought a lawsuit specifically alleging that the owner’s were entering into collusive agreements during the 2010 offseason. The validity of their allegations never reached the court as it the law suit was settled as part of the omnibus settlement that cleared the way for the current CBA. [See my response to SportsCurmdgeon above]. As a legal principle, the settlement of the NFLPA’s anti-collusion case is neither an admission nor a denial of collusive behavior - further, the settlement would be inadmissible in court as evidence and, as such, is simply not legally probative in any manner. [In fact, although I cannot find the cite, the NFLPA issued a statement that it believed the Skins actions in 2010 were proper.]

What the NFLPA has said is that under the current CBA, and pursuant to the procedures stated therein, the NFLPA has “agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.” [Quoting NFL’s statement on the penalties, see cite above].

As I stated before, this procedural acceptance by the NFLPA, under the current CBA, affects only their own substantive rights in relation to the NFL. Through their procedural acquiescence, however, the NFLPA cannot waive the substantive rights of another party. Please, show me one legal theory that would support your assertion that it can.

The only substantive effect of the NFLPA’s acceptance in regards to the rights of DS &JJ is to protect the NFL from any challenge by DS &JJ that the sanction was procedurally improper. In accordance with the procedures set forth in under the current CBA, the Management Council submitted and the NFLPA accepted the sanctions as part of their negotiated right to approve salary caps. So, as to the process by which it imposed the sanction, the NFL is protected and any attack on the sanction as procedurally invalid will likely fail. - - i.e. the Skins will cannot assert "The sanction is invalid b/c you failed to follow the rules in levying it." I concede that, as a procedural matter, it appears that the NFL followed the rules in levying the sanction.

HOWEVER - The ultimate question is not “Was the sanction levied in a procedurally correct manner?” Rather, the substantive question is whether or not the Skins took actions that would subject them to league discipline. For that to be true, they must have been in violation of a legally binding duty to the other owners or the joint venture known as the NFL. Based on well settled legal theory, I assert that the failure to abide by an agreement to restrict contract negotiations in 2010 is simply not a legally binding agreement enforceable by the NFL against any owner and that any attempt to enforce that agreement through sanction is substantively impermissible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantone

This is where we disagree .. you say "While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant " I understand your opinion but I disagree that it is as you say irrelevant. You have 2 parties the owners and the players and both are together in their opinion of what happen except DS and JJ and it looks as if the Cowboys will accept the punishment.I enjoy your theories and at the end of the day that is all mine are becuase nether of us knows the true facts of the case and all we can do is speculate on what really transpired.You use very good words as "cheat" and "cheap ass case" but in the end we know the the NFL lawyers might make it look the other way around.

No. You have multiple parties and multiple rights and duties. The NFL and NFLPA are the two parties to the 2006 CBA and to the current CBA. Within the NFL, you have a joint venture of several distinct business entities. The question of the rights and duties owed by the NFL to any specific club is distinct from the rights and duties owed by the NFL to the NFLPA.

Your opinion is simply not based in any legal theory known to me. Please show me a sound, accepted legal theory … anyone, any theory, that supports your assertion that the NFLPA’s procedural acceptance of the salary cap adjustments in 2012 permits the NFL to enforce an illegal agreement against two of the distinct business entities that make up the NFL.

Yes. NFL lawyers will dress up the pile of sh** handed to them by the owners. They will obfuscate and they will point to their procedures. At the end of the day, however, the one irrefutable fact is that the sanction is being imposed based on the Skins refusal to act pursuant to an “agreement, express or implied, [between] the NFL [and] other Club[s] … to restrict or limit individual Club decision making … concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.”

Neither the facts you say are disputed (DS & JJ initially agreed to the conduct and reneged) or the facts which you say are undisputed (the NFLPA has approved the sanction for the 2010 conduct; Dallas is not pursuing a remedy) are legally relevant or probative on the issue of whether or not the NFL is permitted to enforce, through sanction, the leagues attempt to “restrict or limit [the Skins] decision making” in 2010.

We actually agree on the NFLPA,now where we disagree is
your opinon that the actions of DS and JJ were not improper if as reported they did agree with the other 30 owners they did agree not to dump salaries then they action of the "comittee" overides the action of the 2(or 4)you say they were bound by the CBA.....yet the NFLPA says it was fine with them.Look you sayng the actions were proper at the time ,of course you do you are a Redskin fan but that simply is not the case.
This is where we disagree .. you say "While it looks good at first blush, the NFLPA's procedural approval of the sanction is irrelevant " I understand your opinion but I disagree that it is as you say irrelevant.You have 2 parties the owners and the players and both are together in their opinion of what happen except DS and JJ and it looks as if the Cowboys will accept the punishment.I enjoy your theories and at the end of the day that is all mine are becuase nether of us knows the true facts of the case and all we can do is speculate on what really transpired.You use very good words as "cheat" and "cheap ass case" but in the end we know the the NFL lawyers might make it look the other way around.

The NFL franchises were not bound to any CBA during that uncapped year. I think that's the part you're not fully understanding. The NFLPA had no choice but to go along with the sanctions, because it was part of the new CBA (I think I'm saying this right) not to sue the league, in exchange for the league setting this year's salary cap at a higher level than what it would have been set if the NFLPA had not agreed to this demand by the NFL. The league verbally warned the 32 owners not to go crazy during that uncapped year, thus, entering a secret agreement between the league and the owners (NOT the league and the NFLPA.) by definition, that is collusion. Four of the thirty-two decided not to go along with the collusion; two of those teams being more obvious about it apparently (Cowboys/Redskins.) The new CBA is not retro-active. So, legally speaking, the league cannot go back and punish any of the 32 teams for their actions during a time in which no CBA was in place. Whether if it truly creates an competitive unbalance has nothing to do with the legal grounds. In fact, the NFL has created a competitive unbalance with their actions against the Cowboys and Redskins by taking away cap money.

Actually there was a CBA in place technically...just no cap as part of the CBA. This mechanism was intended to motivate both sides to negotiate a new CBA prior to a last year lame-duck CBA situation. Instead the owners decided that that CBA was not to their benefit and opted out, via a provision of the CBA, thus fast-forwarding the last year into 2010.

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

Ok, look this is my other arguement. You can't have it both ways.

1- You can't say there was no collusion and use the Skins as an example, then turn right around and say the Skins should be punished because they broke a warning.

2- Either there was collusion or not. IF there was no collusion then the Skins broke no rule and there should be no punishement. IF the Skins did break the rule (no matter that it was unwritten) then the rule, agreement, warning, whatever is the collusion.

Quote:

col·lu·sion
/kəˈluʒən/ Show Spelled[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPAnoun1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2. Law . a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement:collusion of husband andwifetoobtainadivorce.

You admit 32 teams had an agreement. You admit it was to keep the costs down (which is the treacherous purposes part or comspiracy). So #1 of the definition fits exactly what the 32 owners planned to do. 2 teams refused to break the law which means 30 teams did.

Now lets look at the second definition: A secret understanding- which is exactly what it was, between two or more persons- 30 to be exact, maybe not illegal but definitly to defraud another of his or her rights- keeping the costs down so the players could not argue to up the CAP or show the owners were making more money then they stated they were or could. * now the last part of #2- to appear as advirsaries though in agreement- which is exactly what the 30 teams did and by them punishing the Cowboys and Redskins they have proven there was an agreement and these two teams broke it.

So yes it is collusion.

and I'll say again, the League USED the two teams as an example to show there was no collusion AT THE TIME so the NFLPA/players could not file suit. Now after the fact and all suits have been dropped, still afraid the NFLPA would retaliate the League brought them in and basically bullied them into agreeing with the punishment by telling them if they don't agree with the punishment and agree to not file a law suit then the CAP will be lowered causing your players to lose money. The NFLPA was forced to agree for as they represent the players and want to get them as much money as possible. It wasn't until after the NFLPA promised they would file a suit that the punishments were dolled out.

I really wonder if that is not collusion in itself also the agreement between the owners and NFLPA to not file a law suit and allow the 30 owners to punish, take something of value CAP away from the Redskins and Cowboys. But no one can say the League didn't commit collusion with their original unwritten agreement. If there was no punishment then there is no proof of the collusion which is why the NFLPA has not filed a suit, but now that the other owners want to punish and got an agreement from the NFLPA they felt comfortable in dishing out their punishment.

Why is it not the case? Explain this to me. Tell me the legal principle upon which you rely. All I have seen from you is:

1) DS & JJ may have agreed with the other owners not to engage in contract dumping in the uncapped year.Alternatively, (and as demonstrated by the NFL's statement), the Skins did not agree but rather: "The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement’s early years." NFL statement on salary cap sanctions (emphasis added).

Thus, the sanction is being imposed for actions that took place in 2010. As they related to club/player "contract practices", the actions of the club owners in 2010 were governed by the CBA negotiated between the players and owners in 2006 CBA extension. Here is the relevant section of that agreement as it relates to collusion:

“ARTICLE XXVIII: ANTI-COLLUSION - Section 1. Prohibited Conduct: No Club, its employees or agents, shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents, to restrict or limit individual Club decision making as follows: …(a) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player; … (e) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.” http://static.nfl.com/static/content...-2006-2012.pdf

In light of that clause, tell me how any agreement by the owners that “the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance” does not violate this section.

By their own words, the NFL, through their Management Council is sanctioning DS & JJ for refusing to act pursuant to an “agreement, express or implied, [between] the NFL [and] other Club[s] … to restrict or limit individual Club decision making … concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.”

Whether or not DS & JJ may have, at some point, agreed to the violative conduct and then changed their minds is irrelevant. Any argument based on the agreement of DS & JJ to the collusive conduct is based on the theory that an illegal agreement can be enforced (In this case, the attempted enforcement comes two years after the fact in the form of a sanction).

It can’t. Show me one cite, one theory that indicates an illegal contract (i.e. the verbal agreement in 2010 to avoid contract dumping in the uncapped year) can be legally enforced against a party who subsequently reneges on their promise to participate in the illegal agreement.

2) “The NFLPA says it was fine with them.” No. If you are asserting that the NFLPA has said the NFL’s owners agreement to restrict contract negotiations in 2010 was "fine with them", you are just wrong. Such an assertion is simply contrary to the known facts on this matter.

In fact, in January, 2011 (during the CBA negotiations), the NFLPA brought a lawsuit specifically alleging that the owner’s were entering into collusive agreements during the 2010 offseason. The validity of their allegations never reached the court as it the law suit was settled as part of the omnibus settlement that cleared the way for the current CBA. [See my response to SportsCurmdgeon above]. As a legal principle, the settlement of the NFLPA’s anti-collusion case is neither an admission nor a denial of collusive behavior - further, the settlement would be inadmissible in court as evidence and, as such, is simply not legally probative in any manner. [In fact, although I cannot find the cite, the NFLPA issued a statement that it believed the Skins actions in 2010 were proper.]

What the NFLPA has said is that under the current CBA, and pursuant to the procedures stated therein, the NFLPA has “agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.” [Quoting NFL’s statement on the penalties, see cite above].

As I stated before, this procedural acceptance by the NFLPA, under the current CBA, affects only their own substantive rights in relation to the NFL. Through their procedural acquiescence, however, the NFLPA cannot waive the substantive rights of another party. Please, show me one legal theory that would support your assertion that it can.

The only substantive effect of the NFLPA’s acceptance in regards to the rights of DS &JJ is to protect the NFL from any challenge by DS &JJ that the sanction was procedurally improper. In accordance with the procedures set forth in under the current CBA, the Management Council submitted and the NFLPA accepted the sanctions as part of their negotiated right to approve salary caps. So, as to the process by which it imposed the sanction, the NFL is protected and any attack on the sanction as procedurally invalid will likely fail. - - i.e. the Skins will cannot assert "The sanction is invalid b/c you failed to follow the rules in levying it." I concede that, as a procedural matter, it appears that the NFL followed the rules in levying the sanction.

HOWEVER - The ultimate question is not “Was the sanction levied in a procedurally correct manner?” Rather, the substantive question is whether or not the Skins took actions that would subject them to league discipline. For that to be true, they must have been in violation of a legally binding duty to the other owners or the joint venture known as the NFL. Based on well settled legal theory, I assert that the failure to abide by an agreement to restrict contract negotiations in 2010 is simply not a legally binding agreement enforceable by the NFL against any owner and that any attempt to enforce that agreement through sanction is substantively impermissible.

No. You have multiple parties and multiple rights and duties. The NFL and NFLPA are the two parties to the 2006 CBA and to the current CBA. Within the NFL, you have a joint venture of several distinct business entities. The question of the rights and duties owed by the NFL to any specific club is distinct from the rights and duties owed by the NFL to the NFLPA.

Your opinion is simply not based in any legal theory known to me. Please show me a sound, accepted legal theory … anyone, any theory, that supports your assertion that the NFLPA’s procedural acceptance of the salary cap adjustments in 2012 permits the NFL to enforce an illegal agreement against two of the distinct business entities that make up the NFL.

Yes. NFL lawyers will dress up the pile of sh** handed to them by the owners. They will obfuscate and they will point to their procedures. At the end of the day, however, the one irrefutable fact is that the sanction is being imposed based on the Skins refusal to act pursuant to an “agreement, express or implied, [between] the NFL [and] other Club[s] … to restrict or limit individual Club decision making … concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.”

Neither the facts you say are disputed (DS & JJ initially agreed to the conduct and reneged) or the facts which you say are undisputed (the NFLPA has approved the sanction for the 2010 conduct; Dallas is not pursuing a remedy) are legally relevant or probative on the issue of whether or not the NFL is permitted to enforce, through sanction, the leagues attempt to “restrict or limit [the Skins] decision making” in 2010.

There was no "collusion" against the players,no player was denied the right to make money(see A.Haynsworth) the NFL players Association agrees to this ,what was agreed to by 32 owners was not dumping the saleries during the uncapped year,something all but 4 did,why not all 32 just do it and it would benift eveyone?

Now that I've addressed the Collusion part I'll address the rest. If your right in what you say about the dumping then why did the League sign off on the deals? All they had to do was deny the deals and pass the contracts back to the two owners with the instructions that per the agreement those contracts will not be accepted. Enough said. Done.

But they didn't did they? Why? because had they done that at the time the NFLPA would have had their proof the league had an agreement to keep the costs down and they would have filed the law suit. So the league approves the deals in order to get the new CBA done. No harm no foul. But there is a problem... the other 30 owners are upset that two teams failed to keep to the agreement and want to punish the 2 teams. How do they do that with out getting into trouble? by pulling the NFLPA into a secret meeting and having them agree to not file a law suit.

So if what they owners did was not an illegal issue or any form of legal issue why would they even talk to the NFLPA? Just go out and punish the two owners and be done with it. NO, the Exec Commity was scared that if they did punish then the NFLPA would have their proof of collusion and would have filed suit causing a whole bunch of new problems, ie; the CBA could be called into question all over again and possibly a judge would have made the two parties come to yet another new CBA agreement especially if the NFLPA could prove the owners specifically didn't spend to keep costs down. So the Exec Commity needed the NFLPA to agree not to file a law suit against them so they could punish the Redskins and Cowboys.

There was collusion. The NFLPA was strong armed. and the two teams who chose not to break the labor laws of collusion are being punished for it. Which is wrong. Especially after they approved the deals to now come out and say those deals were wrong. They should have been denied at the time if they were wrong but they weren't. There was no competative edge especially since the other 30 teams could have done the same thing the Redskins and Cowboys did. There was nothing stopping them. There was no law on their books saying they could not do it. They to could have benifited as well. Instead they stuck with the collusion of trying to keep costs down so the NFLPA could not show the owners were making more then they were reporting.

Actually there was a CBA in place technically...just no cap as part of the CBA. This mechanism was intended to motivate both sides to negotiate a new CBA prior to a last year lame-duck CBA situation. Instead the owners decided that that CBA was not to their benefit and opted out, via a provision of the CBA, thus fast-forwarding the last year into 2010.

OK, that part I wasn't quite sure on. I was assuming the owners had let the CBA expire making 2010 an uncapped year without a CBA, but you're probably right.